JUDGMENT :

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.

1. A short point involved in the present petition is whether the third child born to the petitioner on account of failure of the ligation operation can be said to come within the ambit of memorandum dated 01.06.2017 to deny the ACP to the petitioner for three years.

2. The petitioner submits that his wife had undergone ligation operation on 18.09.2011 however the said operation was unsuccessful and she gave birth to a girl child on 16.01.2013. The petitioner already has two male children born on 21st August, 2000 and 10th September 2001 and thus he has three children, out of which one child was born after 1.6.2002. In view thereof, the State Authorities denied the petitioner to grant ACP.

3. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner submitted documentary proof to the authorities to show that the third child cannot be said to have been born with deliberate intentions and was born on account of failure of operation which cannot be treated to come within the ambit of the Memorandum dated 1.6.2017. The respondents did not accept the certificate issued in favour of the petitioner and passed an order treating it to be doubtful, ambiguous and suspicious resulting in filing the present petition before this court.

4. Learned counsel submits that upon issuance of letter dated 13.7.2017, the petitioner submitted a certificate issued from a Doctor who had conducted the concerned Tubal Ligation operation on applying and also produced relevant proof of registration relating to the admission of petitioner for the concerned operation. The same has not been considered. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner’s case cannot be said to be one where a third child is born out of willingness of the parents. Even otherwise, learned counsel submits that a third child was born after a period of 12 years of the earlier child and in such circumstances, the submission of the petitioner cannot be doubted.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the original certificate which was issued did not bear any registration number or date and therefore, it could not have been taken to be correct and the authorities rightly doubted the veracity of the said document.

6. I have considered the submissions.

7. Perusal of the certificate shows that the petitioner’s wife had undergone a ligation operation on 18.9.2011 but the certificate does not mention date or signatures although there are signatures of several doctors on the said certificate. Again on 28.8.2017, the concerned operating doctor has also certified of having conducted operation of the petitioner’s wife and the registration of the petitioner’s wife also shows that she was admitted and operated on 18.9.2011 and discharged on 19.9.2011.

8. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the certificate is ambiguous or suspicious and the authorities ought to have taken a pragmatic view and considering that, now the case ought to have been examined.

9. The Memorandum dated 1.6.2017 reads as under:-

“The existing item (iii) of Sub-Para (7) of Para 2 of finance Department Memorandum of even number dated 31.12.2009 as amended vide Memorandum of even number dated 06.10.2015 shall be substituted by the following, namely:-

“The appointing authority shall also obtain an affidavit from the employee with reference to having only two children on or after 01.06.2002 prior to granting ACP. An employee who has more than 2 children or after 01.06.2002 shall not be granted next ACP for 3 years from the date on which his/her ACP becomes due and it would have consequential effect on the subsequent financial upgradation which would also get deferred to the extent of delay in grant of previous financial upgradation. The employee having more than 2 children shall not be deemed to have been disqualified, so long as the number of children he/she has on 01.06.2002 does not increase.”

This order shall come into force with immediate effect.”

10. From perusal of the above, it is a